May 8, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Sustainable Harvest Sector, one of the fishery cooperatives authorized by the New England Fishery Management Council, has called again for NMFS to redistribute Carlos Rafael’s fishing permits to the entire industry, by returning the catch history to the entire region.  Below is a statement from the Board of this Sector, making the case as to why NMFS should act in this manner. [Saving Seafood Editor’s Note: The Board of this Sector consists of Frank Patania, Anthony Fernandes, Phil Ruhle, Jr., Maggie Raymond, James Odlin, Marshall Alexander]

They also rightly state that any geographic preference, such as permanently awarding a portion of quota to New Bedford, requires an extensive public consultation and rulemaking, as such geographic allocations are outlawed under Magnuson except in very special and specific cases.

Fair and Just Compensation in the Case of Carlos Rafael

As Carlos Rafael’s criminal case of money laundering and fishery fraud winds toward closure, the National Marine Fisheries Service must confirm how to re-allocate Rafael’s fish harvesting privileges.  The government plans to seize thirteen vessels and fishing permits. That still leaves Rafael with dozens more boats and permits to continue operating, and many fishermen believe he should be expelled from the fishery entirely.  But whether it’s thirteen permits seized or the three dozen he owns, each one has some amount of fishing rights ‘attached’ to it which must be re-allocated.

The New England Fishery Management Council is the primary federal body which controls quota allocation, and it already has a re-allocation mechanism in place.  Several years ago, the Council voted that the harvesting rights attached to any permit surrendered to the government would be proportionally redistributed to all remaining permits in the fishery.

Though the Council perhaps did not envision a seizure of this magnitude, the mechanism actually works quite well here.  Carlos Rafael has a long history of breaking a myriad of fishing rules, including quota-busting, violations of fishing time limits, closed area incursions, and false catch reporting to the government.  The nearly twenty publicly available settlement agreements with the government follow a timeworn, repeat pattern: A violation, followed by a negotiated fine which is just the cost of doing business in a criminal enterprise.

Rafael stole from every other fisherman in New England.   Over the last five years, his boats poached fish from waters off Downeast Maine to the Rhode Island coast.  While everyone else was suffering under severe cuts to their allowable catch of cod and flounder, Rafael simply decided those cuts didn’t apply to him, and smuggled the fish ashore anyway.

So the Council’s re-allocation mechanism rewards those who play by the rules.  If offers some relief to fishermen working under stringent catch limits which might be a bit higher if not for Rafael and his complicit captains.   It buttresses the logic that as the crimes were committed throughout the region, relief should be distributed throughout the region as well.

The City of New Bedford believes Rafael’s thirteen permits should be confiscated, then locked to that port in perpetuity.  This is an understandable position but is morally bereft.   Locking the quota to that port denies redress to the vast majority of Rafael’s victims.  The City of New Bedford has only benefitted from Rafael’s continuous criminal acts.  It is unseemly to enjoy those benefits for twenty years then, once the scam is exposed, seize them for all time.

New Bedford is by far the nation’s richest fishing port and has been for at least a decade, landing $300-$400 million of seafood annually. In contrast, the entire New England groundfishery is presently worth $60 million.  It is a vibrant and diverse waterfront which will not, by the Mayor’s own admission, succumb to Rafael’s misdeeds.  And New Bedford will benefit from the Council’s mechanism, via quota re-allocation to other boats already based in that port.  Everybody gains.

Neither the governing Council, nor the National Marine Fisheries Service which implements the Council’s policy directives, has ever contemplated restricting quota even to the New England states, never mind individual cities.  Changes of that magnitude take years to develop and mountains of public input – which the Council already conducted, as part of its fishery management plan.  The redistribution mechanism is already in place, it has passed legal muster, and – particularly in this case – it is just.

Board of Directors

The Sustainable Harvest Sector

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.